Available Now: 2023 Schedule of Hazmat & RCRA Training

EPA Jurisdiction—Sackett v. EPA

Posted on 8/14/2012 by James Griffin

Recently, the case of Sackett v. EPA has been brought to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) jurisdiction over wetlands under the Clean Water Act, which could potentially affect future EPA authority.
In 2007, Michael and Chantell Sackett began development on a 2/3-acre private residential plot near, but not on the shore of, Priest Lake in Idaho. The Sacketts soon received a compliance order from the EPA ordering them to “immediately undertake activities to restore the Site….” They were fixed with the maximum daily fine of $37,500 per day.
The EPA’s compliance order stated that the Sackett’s plot was on “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas” [CWA §502(7)], otherwise known as “navigable waters,” and therefore fell under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, requiring them to follow specific compliance requirements. The Sacketts believed this was their private property and therefore not subject to the rules of the CWA.
The Supreme Court Weighs In
Court JurisdictionThe Sacketts sought a hearing with the EPA, arguing that the compliance order was “arbitrary and capricious.” However, the Agency denied hearing their claim. Several lower courts denied the Sacketts, but SCOTUS has now ordered that the couple can indeed have their day in court without awaiting EPA’s decision to sue them for failure to comply with the order.
In his delivery of the unanimous decision of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that while the particulars of the case revolve around the jurisdictional scope of the term “navigable waters,” the Court’s only focus was on the dispute over EPA’s jurisdiction over the property being brought to court. Justice Scalia then referenced Chief Justice Roberts’ Rapanos v. United States concurring opinion that a lack of detailed guidance on “how to read Congress’ limits on the reach of the Clean Water Act” left those affected “to feel their way on a case-by-case basis.” According to Scalia, the Sacketts were in the position of “feeling their way” and deserve a chance to argue EPA’s right to regulate their property under the vague Clean Water Act definition of “navigable waters.”
Long-term Effects on EPA Authority
In effect, SCOTUS is putting the responsibility for the larger problem back onto the lawmakers. This may be where the long-term effect of Sackett v. EPA will be felt: if enough aggrieved property owners take EPA to court on the current “case-by-case basis” of determining which wetlands qualify as “jurisdictional wetlands,” EPA may petition Congress to settle the matter once and for all. Settling that matter by expounding on the Clean Water Act would give more specific guidelines on how the EPA can proceed in these cases.
Gain a clear understanding of the EPA’s regulations at Lion’s Complete Environmental Regulations Workshop. You will learn the latest enforcement initiatives to help you avoid any violations or costly fines, covering topics like: Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and more.
On May 3, 2012, Sackett v. EPA was remanded back to the Ninth Circuit Court. Read the entirety of the SCOTUS decision, including concurring opinions: here.

Tags: Act, Clean, EPA, Water

Find a Post

Compliance Archives

Lion - Quotes

My experience with Lion classes has always been good. Lion Technology always covers the EPA requirements I must follow.

Steven Erlandson

Environmental Coordinator

I was able to present my scenario to the instructor and worked thru the regulations together. In the past, I attended another training firm's classes. Now, I have no intention of leaving Lion!

Diana Joyner

Senior Environmental Engineer

No comparison. Lion has the best RCRA training ever!!

Matt Sabine

Environmental Specialist

We have a very busy work schedule and using Lion enables us to take the course at our own time. It makes it easy for me to schedule my employees' training.

Timothy Mertes

Hazmat Shipping Professional

The instructor was very dedicated to providing a quality experience. She did her best to make sure students were really comprehending the information.

Stephanie Venn

Inventory Control Specialist

Lion's course was superior to others I have taken in the past. Very clear in the presentation and the examples helped to explain the content presented.

George Bersik

Hazardous Waste Professional

Lion was very extensive. There was a lot of things that were covered that were actually pertaining to what I do and work with. Great Job. I will be coming back in three years!

Tony Petrik

Hazmat Shipping Professional

The workshop covered a lot of information without being too overwhelming. Lion is much better, more comprehensive than other training providers.

George Alva

Manufacturing Manager

These are the best commercial course references I have seen (10+ years). Great job!

Ed Grzybowski

EHS & Facility Engineer

Lion Technology workshops are amazing!! You always learn so much, and the instructors are fantastic.

Dorothy Rurak

Environmental Specialist

Download Our Latest Whitepaper

Get to know the top 5 changes to OSHA’s revised GHS Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200 and how the updates impacts employee safety at your facility.

Latest Whitepaper

By submitting your phone number, you agree to receive recurring marketing and training text messages. Consent to receive text messages is not required for any purchases. Text STOP at any time to cancel. Message and data rates may apply. View our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.